JAMA study links AI scribes to modest EHR time savings and slightly higher weekly visit volume

What JAMA reported on X

On April 3, 2026, JAMA used X to point readers to a new multisite study on AI-powered scribes. The journal’s summary was concise but important: adoption across 5 academic centers was associated with modest reductions in EHR and documentation time, alongside a slight increase in weekly visit volume. That makes the post more than a product anecdote. It points to one of the clearest cross-site operational measurements yet for ambient clinical documentation tools.

The paper gives the actual effect sizes. In a difference-in-differences analysis covering 8,581 clinicians, including 1,809 AI scribe adopters, adoption was associated with 13.4 fewer minutes of total EHR time and 16.0 fewer minutes of documentation time, both normalized to 8 scheduled patient hours. It was also associated with 0.49 additional weekly visits delivered. Time spent in the EHR outside work hours did not change significantly.

Where the effects were strongest

What makes the study useful is that it goes beyond a single hospital or a single vendor story. The authors examined 5 US academic health care institutions that introduced AI scribes between June 2023 and August 2025. The cohort included primary care, medical, and surgical specialties, along with attending physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and residents.

The journal’s key points also stress that the gains were not evenly distributed. The largest changes were seen among primary care specialists, advanced practice clinicians, female clinicians, and clinicians who used AI scribes in 50% or more of visits. That detail matters because it suggests the payoff depends heavily on specialty mix and workflow intensity rather than on a single headline average.

Why it matters

The study gives one of the strongest public measurements so far for AI scribe impact across multiple institutions.

The benefits are operational and bounded, not magical: less clerical time, a bit more throughput, and no significant change in after-hours EHR time.

The subgroup differences imply that deployment strategy may matter as much as the technology itself.

The broader takeaway is that the AI-scribe conversation is shifting from demo quality to measurable workflow impact. The results are modest, and the authors frame them that way. But modest changes matter when they are applied across thousands of clinicians. JAMA’s X post is therefore a useful signal that AI scribes are starting to produce real, quantified changes in documentation load and clinic capacity, even if they have not yet transformed the whole workday.

Sources: JAMA X post · JAMA study